Yesterday the US House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on physical war wounds. Chair Michael Michaud explained in his opening statement, "The purpose of today's hearing is to explore how we can best serve our veterans who have sustained severe physical wounds from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, we will closely examine VA's specialized services for the severely injured, which include blind rehabilitation, spinal cord injury centers, polytrauma centers and prosthetics and sensory aids services. With advances in protective body armor and combat medicine, our service members are surving war wounds which

Thomas Zampieri: The VA, I want to start off on some good news, the blind rehab services have expanded services throughout the system. Ironically, back in 2004, they developed the plans for a continum of care based on the idea that the aging population of veterans would need a lot of low vision and blind rehabilitative services. Little, I think, did they realize back then that the plans that they were making to expand services would suddenly be immediately useful for the returning service members with eye trauma and Traumatic Brain Injuries with vision impairments associated with the TBIs. And so what we have is now the VA has expanded. They've had ten in-patient blind centers which offer comprehensive, rehabilitative services for those with blindness but they also have all the specialized staff in those centers such as consultants with orthapedics, general surgeons, neuroligists, psychologists, pharmacologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech pathologists, the list goes on and on. So those individuals refered to the ten blind centers get, I think, excellent care. But the VA has also expanded and they now have 55 sites where they have either low-vision specialists or advanced blind rehabiltative centers. And those centers have specialized staff -- they've actually hired about 250 staff including about 60 low-vision optometrists and they're screening these patients with visual problems and visual impairments. And so that's the good news.

In addition, Zampieri noted problems such as the fact that BROS (Blind Rehabilitative Outpatient Specialists) can visit the VA and do various things but they can't do what they're trained to and so he asks that the VA grant BROS the same Medical Treatment Factilities (MTF) clinical privileges as VA clinical staff. We're going to stay with opening statements and, please note, this is what was stated. It may or may not track with the prepared written opening statement which are submitted ahead of time and submitted for the record. So here's a sampling of the first panel, via their opening statements. And these are excerpts, not their entire opening statements.

Carl Blake: It is important to emphasize that specialized services are part of the core mission and responsibility of the VA. For a long time, this has included spinal cord injury care, blind rehabilitation, treatment for mental health conditions -- including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder -- and similiar conditions. Today, Traumatic Brain Injury and polytrauma injuries are new areas that the VA has had to focus its attention on as part of their specialized care programs. The VA's specialized services are incomparable resources that often cannot be duplicated in the private sector. For PVA, there is an ongoing issue that has not received a great deal of focus: Some active duty soldiers with a new spinal cord injury or dysfunction are being transferred directly to civilian hospitals in the community and bypassing the VA health care system. This is particularly true of newly injured service members who incur their spinal cord injuries in places other than the combat theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan. This violates a memorandum of agreement between VA and DoD that was effective January 1, 2007, requiring that "care management services will be provided by the military medical support office, the appropriate military treatment facility and the admitting VA center as a joint-collaboration" and that "whenever possible the VA health care center closest to the active duty member's home of record should be contacted first." In addition, it requires that to ensure optimal care, active duty patients are to go directly to a VA medical facility without passing through a transit military hospital -- clearly indicating the critical nature of rapidly integrating these veterans into an SCI health care system. This is not happening. For example, service members who have experienced a spinal cord injury while serving in Afghanistan and Iraq are being transferred to Sheppard Spinal Center, a private facility, in Atlanta when VA facilities are available in Augusta. When we raised our concerns with the VA regarding Augusta in a site visit report, the VA responded by conducting an information meeting at Sheppard to present information and increase referrals. However, reactionary measures such as this should not be the standard for addressing these types of concerns. Of additional concern to PVA, it was repoted that some of these newly injured soldiers receiving treatment in private facilities are being discharged to community nursing homes after a period of time in these private rehabilitation facilities. In fact, some of these men and women have received sub-optimal rehabilitation and some are being discharged without proper equipment. PVA is greatly concerned with this type of process and treatment.

Joy Ilem: Today's injured military service members are experiencing higher survival rates than in previous wars, with the overall survival rate among wounded troops being about 90 percent. This increase is attributed to the widespread use of body armor, improved battlefield triage procedures and expedited medical evacuation. For a majority of our wounded service members, the first level of complex intervention on their journey to a VA PRC nomrally occurs at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, operated by the US Army. Up until 2009, VA received little or no information about wounded service member transport, the full extent of the acute care process that service members had undergone or the stress that these patients had experienced before arriving at a VA PRC. However, in October of 2009, a team of two VA physicians and two nurses from VA's Polytrauma System of Care spent four days at Landstuhl to gather information and put a system in place to establish a regular exchange of information between medical teams in the military and VA's PRCs. The PRCs are now able to track patients from the beginning of their jouneys and can identify medical complications much earlier. This system of coordination has established a continuum of care that is not proprietary to the DoD or VA and has aieded them to develop one system that benefits our wounded personnel and veterans.

Tom Tarantino: We asked our members what they though of the treatement they were receiving at the VA and we've received a wide range of opinion, both complementary and critical. However, several-several common themes appeared: Long waits for appointments, frequent interaction with rude administrative staff, a growing distrust of VA health care and long drives to VA facilities. Fortunately, we received very few complaints about the actual quality of care at VA medical centers. But in addition to the concerns listed above, our members have expressed concern with how the VA deals with Traumatic Brain Injury. To properly treat returning combat veterans with mild to severe TBI the VA must completely rethink and adapt their medical rehabilitation practices. IAVA is concerned that the VA has limited or denied access to some veterans seeking recovery services for TBI because current statute requires that the VA provides services to restore functions to wounded veterans and while full recovery should always be the desired outcome for rehabilitation, sustaining current function or just preventing future harm should also warrant access to VA services.

Denise Williams: In response to the large number of veterans with prosthetics and rehabilitative needs, VA established Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers (PRC). The VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers provide treatment through multi-disciplinary medical teams including cardiologists, internal medicine, physical therapist, social work and transition patient case managers and much more specialty medical service areas, to help treat the multiple injuries. Currently, VA maintains four VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers in Richmond, VA; Minneapolis, MN; Palo Alto, CA and Tampa, FL. However, the American Legion is concerned about VA's ability to meet the long term needs of these young veterans. As stated by the Military Medicine Journal, rehabilitation is a crucial step in optimizing long-term function and quality of life after amputation. Although returning veterans with combat-related amputations may be getting the best in rehabilitative care and technology available, their expected long term health outcomes are considerably less clear. It is imperative that both DoD and VA clinicians seriously consider the issues associated with combat-related amputees and try to alleviate any forseeable problems that these OIF-OEF amputees may face in the future.

We'll note this exchange.

Chair Michael Michaud: This question is actually for all the panelists. I've heard some anecdotes from veterans who applaud prosthetic services that they receive at the Dept of Defense but are very leery of the care that they might receive through the VA system. Do you believe that DoD provides better overall prosthetic services compared to the VA? Or do you believe that these anecdotes that I'm hearing are just a few isolated cases? And I don't know who wants to address that.

Joy Ilem: I'll go ahead and take a stab at that. I think early on, you know, we heard reports -- I mean, I remember from hearings even with [Iraq War veteran] Tammy Duckworth [now the Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs at the VA], one of the situations that's very unqiue is DoD and Walter Reed obviously have had -- you know, the focus has been on them for really doing much of the prosthetics and rehab there on site. I know that VA, from attending their prosthetics meeting, have integrated their people to go out and see, you know, what's going on as these people start to transfer back to the VA. But the complaints were that when they returned to the VA to have either their item serviced or to continue their rehabiliation they ran into sort of a disconnect from anyone at the facility they had been working with. The prosthetician had very much attention to and all the access to the newest items and options at the DoD site -- it seemed very different within the VA. I think that, you know, VA's prosthetic services tried to really improve that and make good strides in trying to make sure that they are ready to accept these veterans as they transition back into VA to repair their equipment , to have -- I know that they have access to all of the vendors that are working out there and they have done this liason work. I'm hoping that -- that percetion, as Tom has mentioned, you know, it lingers when you hear so much about DoD and then people want to return there because it's a very sensitive issue in terms of the people that they're working with and the items that they're working with and then to have to go to a new system where people that haven't seen the high tech equipment, you know, you don't have a lot of confidence, I'm sure. They're saying, 'That's the first time I've seen that' but the truth is they're getting access to some of the most high quality equipment that nobody has seen, so I'm hoping it's changing but it still may be the case in some situations.

Carl Blake: Mr. Chairman, I just want to sort of piggy-back a little on what Joy had to say and also make another comment first. Representing a membership that is probably one of the highest in the users of prosthetic devices and equipment from the VA, I would say that our members generally never -- I won't say "never" -- generally do not have problems getting the most state of the art wheel chairs and other types of equipment that they need. In the occasion where maybe there's some difficulty getting some prosthetic equipment or whatever it may be, it's usually just a matter of working with the prosthetic department through our service officers or what have you to make sure that the right steps are taken. But-but our members are not experiencing a lot of problems getting what they need and, believe me, when it comes to state of the art wheel chairs, you'd be surprised at what's out there. I want to sort of tag along on what Joy had to say, I think you would find that DoD is not unlike VA in sort of the prosthetic structure and some of VA's prosthetic services is not unlike the rest of its health care, it has to become adaptable to the changing needs of this generation. Prosthetics is no exception. I think a lot of focus is put on the high tech -- we talk about these advanced prosthestics the service members are getting from DoD but it really boils down to them getting through Walter Reed, Bethesda, Brooke or some of the major military checkpoints. But if they went back to a lot of home stations, I think you'd find that a lot of these military treatment facilities, they don't exactly have the capacity to meet their needs when it comes to prosthetics or the maintenance required for that equipment either. So DoD is not unlike the VA in that respect and I think that VA is probably trying to address it more than DoD would in that respect and we've heard time and again from Mr. [Fred] Downes who overseas the VA's prosthetics that -- I think he recognizes the need for them to become more adapatable and get it to the field so that, as these men and women are ultimately going to come to their local facilities, the VA can meet their needs particularly on the maintance of this high-end equipment. I mean, they are intimately involved in what's going on out at Walter Reed in particular because that's sort of where everything begins when it comes to these advanced prosthetics. So I -- You can beat up on the VA for it but in fairness to the VA, they're seeing demands on their system that they never could have imagined before now also.

Chair Michael Michaud: Thank you very much. My next, my last question for all the panelists actually is: When you look at speciality care within the VA system, do you believe that speciality care is provided equally among all of VA facilities talking to your membership?

Carl Blake: I'll speak to the SCI [spinal cord injury] side of it. I think because of the model that's been established, we feel pretty confident that it's sort of a uniform policy in the way that all SCI care is provided across the system. That again is a function of how the entire SCI service has been set up through the hub-and-spoke model. We're encouraged to see that the VA is sort of moving that way in the polytrauma aspect. And yet there are a lot of challenges as it relates to TBI that Joy raised and going forward that the VA is going to have to figure out how to deal with along the way. But I feel pretty confident that they do the right thing across the board when it comes to SCI service in particular.

Joy Ilem: I would add on to that, some of the complaints that we've heard from veterans contacting us about mild to moderate TBI is that their family sort of recognized that they had an issue, they had been using the VA system for other things, they went to the VA, weren't satisifed in certain areas of the country -- I mean, I'd received calls from sort of different locations saying, you know, 'I ended up in the private sector with VA fee-basing me into an out-patient program that really offered a range of things that I've learned so much in the last six months in terms of mild TBI, how to deal with it for my family centered care, addressing a range of issues and opportunities for them to have this wide range of out-patient care.' And in those cases, you know, I've contacted the VA directly and tried to find out is it just this location that they're having this problem or is it a systemic problem. It's hard to say unless, you know -- someone like PVA really has people on the ground that are doing site visits and the Legion. But in that specific area, that's a concern of ours. We're hoping that in certain areas, we're hoping that they've got the interdisciplinary teams that are needed to provide that care and that they've developed a wide range of services and a good type of program for that but I'm not convinced of that, that it's everywhere yet. I think it's in certain locations -- obviously with the major polytrauma centers -- but as you go further out, and then obviously in the rural areas where those services are-are not available and they have to connect them with the nearest prviate sector facilities. You know, we'd like to see some continuity of care and make sure that care is available everywhere.

Denise Williams: I'd like to add that during our site visit that was a main issue: staffing shortages. As Joy just mentioned, in the areas where they have the polytrauma centers, you'll see where they have a lot of speciality care available but as you go out to the other facilities there is definitely a shortage for speciality care. And we hear that from the veterans and we also hear that from VA staff themselves at the facilities, that there's a shortage.

Thomas Zampieri: Same thing. The major centers, both the military polytrauma centers, Walter Reed, Bethesda, Brooke Army Medical Center, Balboa out in San Diego, or you go to any of the four VA polytrauma centers, it's amazing. I think everybody gets seen by everybody. I mean it's not unusual to have a team of thirty different specialists seeing a patient and the hand off has improved dramatically since 2005 when I was sitting in this room, I think, with a couple of things. One is that we're always concerned with everybody focuses on -- the famous beat-up in this town is Walter Reed. You know, when something goes wrong and the universe focuses there. But the patients who are evacuated back through Landstuhl come back into the United States, I think there's a misperception that everybody goes through Bethesda or Walter Reed and actuality, some people will admit that about thirty percent of all the wounded and walking wounded actually go back to the original home platform base of deployment. So if you go to Fort Drum or Fort Carson, Coloardo or Fort Gordon, Georgia or -- just name a base. Fort Hood, Texas. You'll find individuals who are evacced back through the system that didn't get seen in one of these highly specialized centers. And some of those are the ones that we find that have a vision problem -- you know, they didn't have a lot of other severe injuries so they were evacced back and then they sort of get lost. Somebody on one side doesn't notify the VA Blind Rehab Services or the local VIST coordinator that they have somebody that's experiencing vision problems and that there's treatment available, that there's specialized devices from prosthetics that are available to help them in their recovery and treatment. And so that's why the visions centers of excellence is important -- because it isn't just the major trauma severe cases that need to be tracked, it's all of the types of injuries -- mild, moderate, severe -- as far as vision goes -- that need to be carefully tracked and followed and the providers need to be able to exchange the information between them -- between the VA providers, the opthamologists and the military, their colleagues, and the military treatment facilities. Because, again, a person at Fort Drum, New York may suddently have somebody come in that was evacced back from Landstuhl with injuries and that's where one of the problems is. Thank you.

CNN reports, "The Senate passed an emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, setting aside a House package that includes additional social spending." So the Democratically-controlled Senate is sending the war supplemental -- which Barack swore would take place once and only once in 2009 and never again under his watch -- back to the Democratically House and welcome to Bizarro World. Michael Steele, chair of the GOP, calls the Afghanistan War Barack's war and he's only 'wrong' in that he forgot the Iraq War. They're both Barack's wars. And welcome to Bizarro World. Governors do photo ops in Iraq and praise the conditions there -- and they're Democrats -- like Governor Tim Pawlenty. And Governor Jim Douglas. And welcome to Bizarro World. Michael Bell (Globe and Mail) writes a strong column which opens with, "The American-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq are failing." A UN report this week, [PDF format warning] "Regional Response Plan for Iraqi Refugees," explains that Iraq continues to be unstable, that "human rights violations continue, including illegal detention, targeted killing, kidnapping and discrimination. The formation of a new Government following the Parliamentary elections in March continues to be delayed and the political vacuum may continue until August or September 2010." And, for those wondering, the Green Party continues to refuse to mount a left critique of Barack yet again signaling that they are content to forever be the kid sister of the Democratic Party.

Still on peace news, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan notes in "Myth America II: FREE PDF FILE" (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox), "Last year in January, I found myself in an awkward place--being pro-peace in a nation that had seemed to have turned itself upside down either in questionable euphoria or abject fear because a new member of the elite class had been installed as president of the United States." Cindy's offering Myth America as a PDF for free or for a donation to Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox.

Starting with Iraqi refugees. Tuesday the United Nations released [PDF format warning] "Regional Response Plan for Iraqi Refugees." The 108 page report focuses on "the immediate needs of Iraqi refugees in 12 countries: Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Iran" Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudia Arabia and the UAE. Syria, Jordan and Lebanon continue to house the most Iraqi refugees. And humanitarian organizations -- including the UNHCR, CARITAS, CARE International, UNICEF, France RC, -- are suffering from a drop in donations. This comes at a time when Iraq itself continues to be unstable. The report notes that "human rights violations continue, including illegal detention, targeted killing, kidnapping and discrimination. The formation of a new Government following the Parliamentary elections in March continues to be delayed and the political vacuum may continue until August or September 2010." These conditions and others continue to influence the flow of Iraqis out of Iraq and create new refugees -- with very few refugees (the report covers external refugees only) returning to Iraq. In Syria, for example, new Iraqi refugees are citing "threats made against them" and/or "the security situation in their area" as reasons for departing Iraq in 2010. One new feature emerging is a drop in official refugees. How can that be?

Many refugees are no longer apparently confident that they can be helped and they have been dropped from the UNHCR rolls (it's noted that all they have to do is ask to be reactivated). In addition, this year, the UN has resetled 7,918 Iraqi refugees as of May 31st. The report offers a breakdown of registered refugees by country and by gender. GCC is Gulf Cooperation Council and Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudia Arabia and the UAE make up the GCC. Iraqi refugees (registered) in Syria, Jordan and Egypt make up 49% of each countries' Iraqi refugees. By contrast, in Lebanaon, females make up only 36% of the Iraqi refugee population with males coming in at 64%. All host countries have similar needs because the realities refugees face don't differ a great deal. They need medical assistance, they need food assistance, they need training if they're fortunate enough to be in an area that will allow them to work, they need housing assistance and much more. It's all the basics and with the global economy having dived, donations are down to humanitarian organizations.

We won't provide a breakdown of each country (the report does); however, we will not a camp on the border between Syria and Iraq. Iraq's Palestinian population has been noted at this site several time before; however, it is the segment of the population that has received the least attention at this site. So we'll note the section on the ones at Al-Hol camp in full. But first, Palestinians who became Iraqi refugees mainly populated Al-Hol, Al-Tanaf, Al-Walid and Al-Ruwesiehed camps. The Al-Tanaf camp closed February 1st. The Al-Hol camp was set up in 1991, during the first Gulf War. Children of this camp attend Syrian schools. From the report, we'll note:

As of 15 May 2010, some 561 Palestinians from Iraq were living in Al-Hol camp. This population comprises three major groups:

1) The former Al-Hol camp population, the majority of whom is awaiting the completion of formalities for resettlement departure.2) The remaining Al-Tanf population who were transferred to Al-Hol between the ened of 2009 and 31 January 2010, and have fallen outside the resettlement process for Al-Tanf camp.3) Palestinian refugees recently arrived at the camp from Damascus.

Since the beginning of the year, various achievements have been made. They include the closure of the Al-Tanf camp, thanks to increased advocacy efforts by the humanitarian community in 2009 with the Syrian Government and resettlement countries.Regarding the Al-Hol situation, improved and standardized registration procedures for camp residents have been introduced, all vulnerabilites and basic bio-data being checked and updated. Three refugee committees were newly elected and participate in the camp management and decision-making process.All agencies involved have set up and now closely monitor an accountability framework of the activities. On the assistance side, all shelters have been connected to the potable water system; a food basket was agreed at the beginning of the year with the refugee community; primary health care has been provided at the camp level; and regular food and NFI distributions (such as hygiene kits or school supplies) have taken place.In terms of solutions, return to Iraq is not considered a viable option, given the current security situation and the uncertain future for Palestinians in Iraq. Resettlement is still considered the most desirable option for Palestinians ex-Iraq living in Al-Hol camp. At the same time, UNHCR and UNRWA are exploring a local temporary solution with the Syrian authorities, whereby part of the remaining Palestinian population from Iraq would be authorized to regularize their stay and enjoy a set of minimal rights.In this view, and similarly to the process that took place in Al-Tanf, the Syrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs has publicly communicated that its objective is to support the joint efforts to close Al-Hol camp by the end of 2010.

It's worth noting that while US government dollars have been wasted on a huge number of projects and 'projects,' the US -- which led on the Iraq War which produced the refugee crisis -- has only agreed to provide $17,724,493 (in US dollars). That's appalling. Though they can take pride in not being the United Kingdom ($2,400,000). And Australia whose John Howard (prime minister when the war started) wanted to be a player and got so upset when the press would forget to mention him as one of the three big leaders on the war? They're bellying up to the bar to waive $161,570. They can't even reach the million mark. How very sad. Of course, these are only the figures to date and all the countries -- including the US -- could increase their contributions before the end of the year. Refugees International issued the following press release today:

Washington, D.C. -- Refugees International President L. Craig Johnstone today called for a greater U.S. commitment to more than two million Iraqis who have fled their homes due to conflict and fear of persecution during seven years of U.S. engagement in Iraq. "As the U.S. military departs Iraq it is leaving behind nearly 500,000 Iraqi refugees -- mainly in Syria and Jordan -- and one and a half million Iraqis who have been uprooted from their homes, many of whom live in total destitution in shanty towns of Iraq," said L. Craig Johnstone, President of Refugees International. "This is the tragic legacy of the conflict in Iraq and as the United States disengages militarily it would be unconscionable to abandon our responsibilities to these civilian victims of war." Ambassador Johnstone testified at a Helsinki Commission hearing, "No Way Home, No Way to Escape: The Plight of Iraqi Refugees and Our Iraqi Allies." Johnstone is former Deputy UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and former U.S. Ambassador and Director for Resources, Plans and Policy in the Department of State. Recalling his own experiences in Vietnam, he called on Congress and the Administration to step up to its commitment to Iraqi refugees, as it did after the fall of Saigon. "The United States was woefully unprepared for the collapse of South Vietnam and unfortunately the prevailing attitude bordered on callous disregard for the well being of the many Vietnamese civilians the U.S. was about to leave behind," stated Johnstone. "But as Saigon was falling, the nation mobilized with unprecedented effort, opening its arms to welcome to hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees. We now face an analogous situation in Iraq, and the United States must again wake up to its responsibility -- this time to the millions of Iraqi civilians displaced by the war." Johnstone asked Congress to expand the program that has resettled some 48,000 Iraqis in the Unites States, and to provide greater financial and social support for refugees struggling to rebuild their lives. Seven years after the beginning of the war in Iraq, an unprecedented number of Iraqis are still living in squatter slums filled with open sewers and lacking water and electricity. Most of the squatter settlements are located precariously under bridges, alongside railroad tracks and amongst garbage dumps. Following visits this year to 20 different squatter settlements throughout Iraq, RI found that nearly 500,000 Iraqis are left living in squalor receiving little help from the Iraqi government, aid agencies and the United Nations. Johnstone called on Congress and the Administration to fund at least 50 percent of the United Nations humanitarian appeals for Iraq and noted that to date it has funded only 23 percent of the some $700 million requested. "The United States must fund humanitarian efforts in proportion to its responsibility," stated Johnstone. RI also recommended that the UN adapt its security measures so that humanitarian officials can access squatter communities regularly and provide assistance. "UN and U.S. officials need to get out of the Green Zone and work the problem where it is, in the slums, in the cardboard shelters that go without electricity or sewage systems," stated Johnstone. In February RI staff traveled to Iraq, Jordan and Syria where they interviewed displaced people, local and national government officials and international agencies. Since November 2006, the organization has conducted eleven missions to the Middle East and has led the call to increase assistance and solutions for displaced Iraqis. To read the report, go to: http://www.refugeesinternational.org/policy/field-report/iraq-humanitarian-needs-persistRefugees International is a Washington, DC-based organization that advocates to end refugee crises and receives no government or UN funding. http://www.refugeesinternational.org/.

Oussayma Canbarieh (CBC) reported Friday from Damascus on Iraqi refugees (the UN report notes that Damascus is home to the most Iraqi refugees within Syria) where people like Zakiya reside: "Look at me here, I used to be happy. Now, I've lost it all. First two of my daughters were killed and, a couple of months ago, my husband went back to Baghdad to get us some of our savings and he never came back." Meanwhile John Pontifex notes that Syrian Bishop Antoine Audo SJ has thanked Aid to the Church in Need for their latest contribution of $29,000. From Pontifex's press release:

The Chaldean-rite bishop, who is a Jesuit, said: "I do not think the situation for Christians in Iraq is improving. It is still difficult especially in Mosul [city, north Iraq]. "In Baghdad, it varies a lot. Life can be quite normal and then suddenly there can be attacks on the churches and acts of persecution against the people." His comments come after Pope Benedict XVI told the new Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See that the beleaguered country should "give priority to improved security, particularly for the various minorities". At the meeting earlier this month in which Habeeb Mohammed Hadi Ali al-Sadr presented his credentials to the Pontiff, the Pope stressed his concern that if at all possible, Christians resolve to stay in their ancestral homeland. But he added: "Iraqi Christians need to know that it is safe for them to remain in or return to their homes and they need assurances that their properties will be restored to them and their rights upheld." Aid to the Church in Need is prioritising help for the Middle East after Pope Benedict XVI told the charity that "Churches in the Middle East are threatened in their very existence." As well as helping Iraqi Christian refugees in Syria, ACN is providing aid for those fleeing to Turkey and Jordan.

Also giving thanks this week was Ayad Allawi. Al Jazeera notes, "Allawi in turn thanked Syria for hosting hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees and for its support for efforts to restore stability in Iraq." Meanwhile AINA reports that the Council of Europe is demanding that "the Swedish government stop the deportation of Iraqis." And Gabriel Gatehouse (BBC News -- link has video) reports on an internal refugee camp within Iraq near the Iranian border.

Gabriel Gatehouse: [. . .] this tent village has grown up in just the last month. The people who are living here now come from villages between here and that border [Iranian border] and they fled because of the persistent shelling from inside Iran and aerial bombardments byTurkish planes. They're living a very basic life, water systems provided by UNHCR, the same for the tents they're living in. These people are farmers, they're too scared to go back home to their villages. What's more, they don't know when they'll be able to go back.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

HE IS CROSS-EYED, HAS A SPLOTCH ON HIS FACE THAT LOOKS LIKE THE MARK OF CAIN OR SOMETHING BIBLICAL. HIS FACE IS ALL SQUISHED AT ODD ANGLES AS IF THE BIRTH CANAL WASN'T FRIENDLY TO YOUNG DAVID. MOST OF ALL, HE LOOKS LIKE AN IDIOT. PROBABLY BECAUSE HE IS ONE.

THEN THERE'S THE WAY OF SPEAKING WHICH HAS LED MANY A COLLEAGUE TO HOLLER, "DAVID, TAKE THE COCK OUT OF YOUR MOUTH SO I CAN HEAR YOU!" NOT THAT WE'RE SAYING HE GIVES BLOW JOBS. JUST THAT THE WEIRD WAY HE SPEAKS MAKES IT SOUND AS IF HE'S GOT A COCK IN THERE.

YOU KNOW WHAT CORN NUTS: WHEN YOU LIE ABOUT A PARDON BILL CLINTON NEVER GAVE AND YOU REFUSE TO APOLOGIZE, YOU'RE THE LAST ONE TO TALK ABOUT ETHICS, YOU FREAKING LOOKING BASTARD. AND DAVID, WHEN MOTHER JONES IS GETTING PHONE CALLS COMPLAINING AND YOU STILL REFUSE TO CORRECT YOUR ERROR, YOU LOOK STUPID AS WELL AS FACIALLY DEFORMED -- SERIOUSLY, DID YOU DO THE BODY MASK FOR THE CHER MOVIE MASK?

BUT MOST OF ALL DAVID, WHEN YOU REFUSE TO DO A GENUINE CORRECTION AND INSTEAD ACT THE FOOL BY BRING UP MARC RICH, YOU'RE THE LAST ONE TO TALK ABOUT ETHICS.

AND CHECK OUT THIS DAVID CORN, YOU STUPID STOOGE AND ALL ROUND UGLY ASS MOFO, WHILE YOU WERE REPEATING LIES -- AND REPEATING THEM FOR WEEKS -- AVA AND C.I. KNEW WHAT WAS WHAT RIGHT AWAY.

Apr 17, 2008 ...There was no pardon, Barack (Ava and C.I.). MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, if you get the nomination, you'll have to -- (applause) ...thecommonills.blogspot.com/.../there-was-no-pardon-barack-ava-and-ci.html - Cached - Similar

Yesterday Kerry asked that of James Jeffrey during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination of US Ambassdor James Jeffrey. He is currently the US Ambassador to Turkey, President Barack Obama has nominated him to be the US Ambassador to Iraq. (He would replace the current disaster, Chris Hill.) Last night, Kat covered it at her site with "Senate Foreign Relations Committee," Wally covered it at Rebecca's site with "Kaufman and Casey," and Ava covered it at Trina's site with "Kerry, Lugar and Feingold." Russ Feingold's exchange with Jeffrey hasn't been noted yet.

Senator Russ Feingold: [. . .] And last year Ambassador Hill testified that any delay in withdrawing our troops by 2011 would "be poorly received by the Iraqi people." Do you agree with that assessment? Share that assessment?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: I have seen all the polls, Senator, I just reviewed them in the last two days -- that we've taken and that other people have taken -- and, uh, the Iraqi, uh, populace in very large numbers -- at least outside of the Kurdish areas -- does want to see our forces withdraw.

Senator Russ Feingold: Thank you, sir. The State Dept is planning to make up for the departure of US troops by doubling its security contractors. Even though such contractors often don't have the essential security capabilities that are provided by our troops. I'm concerned this will be dangerous and also lead to a situation where we don't have meaningful control over our own contractors. What alternatives have you considered?

Senator Russ Feingold: Thank you, sir. The State Dept is planning to make up for the departure of US troops by doubling its security contractors. Even though such contractors often don't have the essential security capabilities that are provided by our troops. I'm concerned this will be dangerous and also lead to a situation where we don't have meaningful control over our own contractors. What alternatives have you considered?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: Senator, this is an extremely important point. Uh, if confirmed as chief of mission, my first responsibility will be for the safety and security of the personnel under my supervision and I've put a lot of time and effort into looking at this. Uhm. The -- after the incident in 2007 in Baghdad involving the Blackwater security people, the State Dept did a very thorough investigation called the Kennedy Report. I've read that report. It concluded -- and I think that this conclusion remains true today -- that the State Dept has done a very good job in an extremely lethal environment protecting its people and keeping them alive and safe; however, there needed to be certain steps, technical steps, rule of engagement steps, coordination steps -- coordination both with the US military and with the Iraq authorities, and more supervision. Now we put, uh, a direct hire State Dept officer or person with all movements So -- And we have more technical control through, uh, basically recordings, audio and video equipment and such so that we're able to determine what happened and review any incident and since then there has not been a serious incident. But I want to underscore, this is a very, very difficult mission. This is, uh, uh, a defensive mission, not an offensive one, but it involves thousands of people, many movements in a very lethal environment and it is something we have to remain very concerned about.

Senator Russ Feingold: Thank you, Ambassador. State Dept Human Rights Report on Iraq found that -- as in previous years -- reports of abuse at the point of arrest and during the investigation period -- particularly by the Ministry of Interior's federal police and the Minister of Defense battalion level forces -- continued to be common. Federal law requires a certification before the United States can continue to provide certain kinds of security assistance to any state that has "consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." In your view, how many years of violations must occur before such a certification of a consistent pattern of abuses is required?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: I've read the report, Senator, I would have to look at this in more detail. The effort that we're trying to do, including the police training effort, is to try to get at the violations and the abuse which we have seen in the past and we have seen it -- We saw it when I was there, we've seen it since then, it's been documented. Our hope is that we can see this on a declining slope. And it is something that I will look at very carefully if I'm confirmed and if I go out there.

Senator Russ Feingold: Well of course I applaud that and I urge you on in the effort to make sure that these units are vetted, but my question was: How many years of violations?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: I can't assess that at this time, Senator.

Senator Russ Feingold: Can you get back to me on that?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: I can.

Senator Russ Feingold: Okay. More broadly, how if confirmed will you work with the relevant US and Iraqi entities to faciliate improvements in human rights in Iraq which according to the State Dept report are far less -- far below adequate?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: Again, that is the assessment of the State Dept Human Rights Report and Iraq is coming out of a horrific conflict and out of thirty years of dictatorship and almost constant war, both civil, internal war, war with Iran, war with Kuwait. It's going to take some time for Iraq, even with a democratic government and democratic institutions to move into a environment even more in the average in the region but certainly what we would like to see in the more developed parts of the world. It's going to take time.

Senator Russ Feingold: And in that regard, sectarianism obviously remains a very real problem in Iraq, including in security forces. If confirmed how will you work with the Iraqi government to help make this a priority issue and to push for concrete improvement?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: There are various efforts that we already have underway that I will review and reinforce if I'm confirmed Senator for example, we now do joint-patrols with the US forces, Kurdish forces, peshmerga forces, Iraqi army forces along the disputed internal borders. We are putting a special effort into the minority communities -- I mentioned that in my opening statement, it's of great concern to me. It was then when I was there last time, it remains so. We are also looking at the makeup and the composition of the security forces. It has improved over time but it is something that has been worrisome in the past and it is something that requires continued vigelance.

Senator Russ Feingold: Yes, sir. Finally, the New York Times recently reported on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crude oil and refined products being smuggled across the Iran-Iraq border every year. What steps is the Iraqi government taking to address this problem? given not only its potential to undercut our efforts with Iran but also tensions over resource revenue sharing in Iraq itself?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: We're very concerned about this given the latest, uh, uh, sanctions legislation that the US has passed but also, uh, the role of that in the relationship between Iraq and Iran. I know that we're looking into this latest charges -- the latest information -- at the embassy and with the Iraqi government and also with the folks in the north [Kurds] because some of that smuggling has been identified in the north.

There's a great deal in the above worth commenting on but we'll go for the obvious: Did you notice he didn't mention the Iraq War in his reply to a question about human rights? He was mentioning this conflict and this war and how this and that had hurt Iraq, but he really didn't seem aware that the Iraq War had caused suffering in Iraq, did he?

Today Mike Mount (CNN) reports that the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, has (yet again) declared the US is on track with the drawdown. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) notes Odierno was speaking at a Pentagon briefing and quotes him stating, "To be successful, Iraq must have a unity government." The drawdown is a success! Thus far! Is that really the story or was Odierno trotted out before people could process what took place in the Jeffrey's hearing yesterday?

Ranking Member Richard Lugar and Jeffreys had a lengthy exchange during which, asked about post-withdrawal or 'withdrawal,' Jeffreys explained, "We [State Dept] are taking on missions that the US military has done." Exactly because under the Samantha Power Doctrine, the State Dept becomes militarized in Iraq: It is over 'operations' and has armed 'employees' at various "outposts" in Iraq; it becomes responsible for training Iraqi security forces, it doubles the number of contractors/mercenaries, etc. These are not State Dept duties. The militarization of the State Dept, the armed wing of the State Dept. Jeffreys declared, "The security for all of this would be done by the Deapartment of State under the current plans."

For those present and paying attention, it was obvious that there was no end of the Iraq War in 2012 even if the SOFA was followed. This is the plan Samantha Power didn't attempt to hide from the press. But when the press is in the tank with Barack and/or scared of being attacked by the peers who are, they don't tell you what you need to know. Which is how Davey D had his ridiculous moment of defending Samantha Power on air on KPFA and revealing how dumb he truly could be -- he got her name wrong and he thought she was a woman of peace. This is the woman who blurbed the US military's counter-insurgency manual, the woman from the Carr Center. The one who preaches war eternal. And this plan Jeffrey was discussing, largely with Lugar, in yesterday's hearing. In fact, let's go to the moment Lugar and Jeffrey found so amusing -- it takes place during Lugar's "do not appreciate" when each came close to laughing.

Ambassador James Jeffrey: [. . .] We're going to have to do more if we want to have the kind of presence nationwide that everyone believes is necessary to carry out the President's program, sir.

Ranking Member Richard Lugar: I appreciate your response. I simply made the point because many Americans and members of Congress talking about the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq do not appreciate a whole new contingent is moving. And these aren't military people, these are civilian people. The State Dept and affiliated people. But it is a huge commitment by the American people and a considerable budget. And it follows that after we've had a war and a consideral period of peace making, moving on to the future is not the same maybe as the conventional embassy situation in a country where there's not been this sort of conflict. And we appreciate your outline of it and we will appreciate your management of it.

.

Just to be sure we're all aware of what Lugar outlined, we're going to drop back to his opening statement, which he delivered after he and Kerry took a lengthy break from the hearing and after acting chair Bob Casey paused the hearing for a recess.

Ranking Member Richard Lugar: While making fewer headlines, the situation in Iraq continues to be vital to the national security of the United States. Iraq held parliamentary elections on March 7, 2009, but an agreement on who will be the Prime Minister may not be concluded for several months. The redeployment of American forces in Iraq has begun, and by September, all but 50,000 U.S. troops will have departed the country. President Obama has said that by the end of 2011, all US troops will be out of Iraq. Plans submitted by the Administration suggest that US involvement in Iraq will remain robust well beyond that with more than 5,000 diplomats and civilian advisers working with civil society and the Iraqi government. The uncertain political situation creates risks for our transition plans. Our military has been involved in areas of governance far beyond security and turning over those critical responsibilities will be challenging. The State Dept has asked for more than $800 million in start-up costs for a police mentoring and training program. The program envisions having 350 advisors at three camps who will fan out to 50 sites in the country, about half of which would be reachable by ground and the rest requiring air support. With the military's departure, we are told, the Dept may hire as many as 7,000 contract security personnel. An AP article last month suggested the Iraq mission would need the equivalent of a squadron of Blackhawk helicopters, 50 ambush-protected vehicles and equipment to protect against rockets and mortars. It is important that the Administration flesh out how all the pieces of this unprecedented operation will fit together in Iraq as American troops depart.

That's the militarization of the State Dept and the continuation of the Iraq War. It was interesting to watch Jeffrey, for example, during the exchange with Feingold. Jeffrey stuck to the polls of the Iraqi people on withdrawal; however, he never noted that many Iraqi leaders do not want the US military to levae at the end of 2012. Nouri al-Maliki has publicy made noise about extending the US stay (he did so in August 2008). He is not the only one voicing such desires. Jeffrey is aware of that. Jeffrey chose to ignore that and was less than fully upfront in his reply.

Less than fully upfront desribes the US press and Iraq. They sold the illegal war with their wide-eyed wonder (to put it kindly) and their non-stop whoring (to tell it like it is -- as the Neville Brothers and the Wilson sisters of Heart once sang). Despite the half-truths and outright lies they both repeated and invented, they felt no desire to clear the record when they had the chance to do so via the testimony Eliza Manningham-Buller, former MI5 Director General (2002 - 2007) gave to the Iraq Inquiry (see yesterday's snapshot). At 9:00 pm last night, the New York Times published Sarah Lyall's "Briton Who Led MI5 Disputes Reasons to Invade Iraq" online (and ran it in today's paper). What other newspaper covered the story? As of 8:00 a.m. EST, that was it. Let's be clear on what was testified to. The intelligence stated Iraq was not a threat, the intelligence indicated that tensions would increase as a result of the Iraq War and it would make England's risk of a terrorist attack increase. And, she testified that when then-US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was unable to get the CIA to say that Iraq was a threat to the US, he created his own 'intel' outfit.

So where was everyone? Was, for example, the CBS Evening News so busy with the Jeffrey's hearing that they didn't have time to cover it last night? No. They ignored the hearing. That was the case with everyone including PBS' NewsHour. The same who sold the illegal war couldn't be bothered with it yesterday. Taylor Barnes (Christian Science Monitor) offers a summary of the testimony. And did so before noon today. It should have been huge news. It wasn't. Remember that if there's another terrorist attack. Remember that, despite all of the back patting and self-stroking by the media after September 2001, 9-11 didn't change a damn thing when it comes to the way the media operates. Ask ABC why Facebook or Michael Jordan qualified as news when terrorism and war didn't? No time for either report that mattered yesterday or today but they've got time for fluff? Katie Couric (CBS) had time to tell us about a new book that's nothing but rejection letters? That kind of s**t really saved anyone's life on 9-11? When the Twin Towers were burning and later collapsing, you really think anyone gave a s**t about some stupid coffee table book? Really? And you think that's how you inform the American public today? With that garbage passed off as news?

In London today the Iraq Inquiry continued receiving public testimony. The big witness today was MI5 Director General (2002 - 2007) Eliza Manningham-Buller. Prior to her testifying, a [PDF format warning] letter she sent to John Gieve (Home Office) was declassified [though some parts remain redacted]. Gieve was the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office at that time and the position provided oversight to MI5 (which is Military Intelligence, Section 5).

IRAQ: POSSIBLE TERRORIST RESPONSE TO A US ATTACK

We have been giving some thought to the possible terrorist consequences should the US, possibly with UK support, seek to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. I thought that you might find it helpful to see our current assessment, together with an outline of our own preparations.

2. Since the end of the Gulf War Iraq has been implicated in a small number of murders of Iraqi oppositionists in the Middle East but only one terrorist plan directed against a Western target -- a planned car bomb attack on ex-President Bush in Kuwait in 1993. There is no credible intelligence that demonstrates that Iraq was implicated in planning the 11 September attacks.

3. We judge that the current period of heightened tension between Iraq and the US is unlikely to prompt Saddam to order terrorist strikes against Coalition interests. Even limited military action (for example, cruise missile attacks such as the those in response to the attempted murder of ex-President Bush) would be unlikely to prompt such a response. We assess that Saddam is only likely to order terrorist attacks if he perceives that the survival of his regime is threatened.

In the UK

4. If Saddam were to initiate a terrorist campaign, we assess that Iraqi capability to mount attacks in the UK is currently limited. We are aware of no Iraqi intelligence (DGI) officers based in the UK. There are up to DGI agents here who report on anti-regime activities. But most of these agents lack the inclination or capability to mount terrorist attacks. So if the DGI wished to mount attacks in the UK it would need to import teams from overseas. It is possible that some Palestinian groups based outside the UK might be willing to mount attacks in support of Iraq,

5. Nonetheless, in case Iraq should try to co-ordinate action by existing UK-based agents, or to import its own or a surrogate terrorist capability, we will be taking a number of steps over the coming months, including:

reviewing our knowledge of past and present DGI visiting case officers to identify and disrupt any increase in DGI activity;

putting in place arrangements to deal with (and capitalise on) any increase in defectors, volunteers or callers to the Service's public telephone number who might have relevant information. Experience during the Gulf War leads us to expect an increase in such contact with the public in the event of conflict;

with the police, maintaining coverage of the Palestinian community, some of whom, as during the Gulf War, may react adversely to any threat to Iraq.

6. You may recall that, at the time of the Gulf War, a number of suspected Iraqi sympathisers were detained pending deportation on grounds of national security. These included members of Iraqi support organisations, as well as individuals believed to be associated with Palestinian terrorist groups, such as the Abu Nidhal Organisation. We currently assess that the number of individuals in the UK who potentially pose sufficent threat to be subject to deportation or detnetion is small. We are currently reviewing the cases of those who could pose a threat to establish whether there might be grounds for action.

7. We believe that Middle Eastern countries would be the most likely location should Saddam order terrorist attacks on Western interests. Other locations, for instance SE Asia featured in attempted DGI co-ordinated attacks during the Gulf War and are thus also a possibility. We will, of course, continue to liaise closely with FCO colleagues to ensure they are in a position to brief missions if the situation develops.

Chemical or biological (CB) threat

8. There were media stories during the Gulf War suggesting that Iraq planned to mount CB terrorist attacks in Western countries, and a 1998 scare (arising from a tale put about by Iraqi emigres) that Saddam planned to send anthrax abroad in scent bottles. Given Iraq's documented CB capabilities, we can anticipate similar stories again.

9. Most Iraqi CB terrorist attacks have been assassination attempts against individuals, often emigres.

Iraq used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and also against civilian Kurds in 1988, but there is no intelligence that Iraq has hitherto planned or sought mass-casualty CB terrorist attacks. As with conventional terrorism, we assess that Saddam would only use CB against Western targets if he felt the survival of his regime was in doubt. In these circumstances, his preferred option would be to use conventional military delivery systems against targets in the region, rather than terrorism.

10. There have for some years been reports of contact between the Iraqi regime and Al Qa'ida about CB. But we have yet to see convincing intelligence that useful co-operation developed, or that Iraq provided genuine CB materials.

11. I am copying this letter to Stephen Wright, John Scarlett, Julian Miller and Tom McKane.

E L Manningham-Buller

Deputy Director General

That letter was sent in March 2002, nearly a year before the start of the Iraq War. And that was the intelligence assessment. At Committee member Usha Prashar's request, Manningham-Buller explained the Security Service's tasks: "collect intelligence from a rance of sources, some of them secret, on threats to the United Kingdom and to develop that intelligence, to analyse it and, where necessary, to act on it in mitigating or reducing those threats and also using intelligence generated by us to provide information to government on which policy can be placed and on which more general countermeasures can be developed." Committee Member Prashar wondered about "the intelligence pciture" on Iraq?

Eliza Manningham-Buller: But if I can refer to the letter from me as Deputy Director General from March 2002 which was released -- a redacted version was released today, six months before I became Director General we felt we had a pretty good intelligence picture of a threat from Iraq within the UK and to British interests, and you will see from that letter we thought it was very limited and containable.

We'll move ahead to the start of Committee Member Lawrence Freedman's questioning. Before we do, in the US, Bully Boy Bush and his lackeys were fond of tossing in "mushroom cloud" among their lies. In England, in the leadup to the Iraq War, liar and prime minister Tony Blair publicly insisted that Iraq could deploy WMD on England in 45 minutes. That was a lie. But he insisted it was true.

Eliza Manningham-Buller: As I said to Lady Prashar, we regarded the threat, the direct threat from Iraq as low. We did think -- and it comes in that letter -- that Saddam Hussein might resort to terrorism in the theatre if he thought his regime was toppled, but we did not believe he had the capability to do anything much in the UK. That turned out to be the right judgment. What the letter -- has been redacted from the letter, like I say, in general terms is that is partly as a result of action we took. But I don't think the threat in the UK was anything other than very limited.

Still in the exchange between Freedman and Manningham-Buller. And when you read this, grasp that in 2002 the CIA knew this. Therefore the White House knew it. And the British intelligence knew the White House wasn't happy with the truth the CIA was providing.

Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: Can I just ask one final question, which is related to the things that Iraqis might have done, and this refers to the proposition that Saddam's regime were in some way responsible for providing support, potential support to Al-Qaeda, and even might have been involved in 9/11. Did you give any credence to these sorts of assessments?

Eliza Manningham-Buller: No. I think you have material suggesting that there had been intelligence on occasional contact in the past but I think -- I wrote this down when I was preparing for today -- there was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection and that was the judgment, I might say, of the CIA. It was not a judgment that found favor with some parts of the American machine, as you have also heard evidence on, which is why Donald Rumsfeld started an intelligence unit in the Pentagon to seek an alternative judgment.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne asked about her Queen Mary College speech in 2006 where she stated that the Iraq War had increased the chances that England could be a terrorist target. She informed him, "I think it is worth saying that I needed the approval of the Home Secretary to make public speeches and he cleared the text with me, and John Reid and I discussed that part of it and he agreed that I should say that in public."

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: So you're saying you had evidence that the Iraq conflict, our involvment in the Iraq conflict was a motivation, a trigger, for people who were involved in the attacks in London in July 2005, who were going to Afghanistan to fight. Were there other attacks or planned attacks in which you had evidence that Iraq was a motivating factor?

Eliza Manningham-Buller: Yes. I mean, if you take the video wills that were retrieved on various occasions after various plots, where terrorists who had expected to be dead explained why they had done what they did, it features. It is part of what we call the single narrative, which is the view of some that everything the west was doing was part of a fundamental hostility to the Muslim world and to Islam, of which manifestations were Iraq and Afghanistan, but which pre-dated those because it pre-dated 9/11, but it was enhance by those events.

Lyne asked her to speculate about how such a threat might have been lessened even with the Iraq War proceeding and she responded that the peace could have been planned for, that following the initial invasion, measures could have been taken to return Iraqi lives to normal. "The insistence, for example," she offered, "of the Americans on sacking, you know, much of the Civil Service and the Army, the Ba'athists, was an error. Others much better informed than me will have given you evidence on that. I was asked on a visit to the United States on other matters to talk to Paul Wolfowitz about this issue and to seek to persuade him that it was not sensible to do this." Lyne asked if she managed to "convert him?" "Not a hope," Manningham-Buller replied.

Turning to the US, KSBW reports that Iraq War veteran Tremayne Wilson created some form of disturbance today in Sacremento and was in "a standoff with police." If he's a struggling veteran (he may or may not be -- he might have just had a bad day), it's one more indication that the VA leadership needs to get serious about helping veterans.

Blindness beyond all conceiving describes support for returning to a draft in the US. US House Rep Charlie Rangel has proposed reinstating the draft several times since the start of the Iraq War, most recently he began proposing it last month. In a July 15th press release, Rangel explained his position, "What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield. The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children. The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way. In other words, if you support the war, you should support a compulsary military draft."

And who are these men? Who are these men? Let's talk for a minute about these masters of war, these same men that are sending our sons and our daughters, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers to fight an undeclared and unconstitutional and unwinnable war for them. Let's talk about their service records. Karl Rove did not serve. Paul Wolfowitz did not serve. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Newt Gingrich did not serve. Jeb Bush did not serve. The list goes on and on. And we know George W. did not really serve.

The draft would bring shared sacrifice? When has that ever happened? Ava and I noted the above quote in a piece for Third about, among other things, radio host Nicole Sandler advocating for the return of the draft to Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan (Cindy is opposed to the idea). It was amazing to hear Sandler go on and on about how the wars are wrong and must be stopped and . . . her answer . . . was to return the draft. Sandler's answer wasn't to call out Barack Obama, the War Hawk overseeing the wars. That was too much for her. But, hey, start drafting Americans, she's all on board for that.

There are a ton of myths about the draft. Reality on the draft, the peace movement of the 'sixties' was successful in overturning the draft. It's one of the great successes and a success that the War Hawks immediately began chipping away at. It was Peanut Head Jimmy Carter -- our man of 'peace' -- who returned registration for the draft. In fact, Ronald Reagan's appeal to some young voters had to do with his 1980 campaign promise to repeal the registration. Only the very young ever believed Reagan on that because -- press lapping at his crotch aside -- he never could deliver a line worth s**t. (If you doubt that, check out any speech or his ghastly performance in Bette Davis' Dark Victory.) Carter brought back registration for the draft and Reagan lied that he'd stop it. Except for Emilio Estevez, I'm finding it hard to think of anyone who ever spoke out against that nonsense with any passion or elequence. Certainly politicians of either side of the War Party didn't speak out against it. Since Peanut Head brought back registration, the Oval Office has been occupied by 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats and none of them have bothered to stop the registration.

Though the elimination of the draft was a victory of the peace movement, the draft did not spur the peace movement. This is a lie that a number of crazies and lazies repeat. The crazies because, well, they're crazy. The lazies because, look at Tom Hayden, they're lazy. Real work has always frightened Tom-Tom which is why he dropped the Iraq War like a hot potato when he realized he'd wrung it of all the p.r. value he could. For those who don't want to do the work, the draft becomes the EZ Bake answer. It's what you can hide behind in good times and bad -- as 2003 to the present indicates -- it's what you can bemoan, "Oh, if only we had the draft, if only we had it, oh, we'd have people in the streets, oh, if only."

The draft, we're lied to, would force a shared sacrifice. But everyone didn't get drafted, did they? Oops. Well then, when you don't have war stories, do like the idiot Tom Hayden and fall back on draft physical 'war stories.' The peace movement, Tom-Tom wanted you to know, was fueled by those invasive physicals. In the July 5, 2007 snapshot, we were noting how stupidity was contagious and Tom's latest starry-eyed groupie Richard C. Paddock (Los Angeles Times) needed to learn to think before penning that, "In the 1960s, the possibility of being drafted at the age of 18 -- before they could even vote in those days -- compelled students to decide where they stood on Vietnam." The sixties? No quotes? When were the biggest rallies and marches against the war? In the early 1970s. Facts is hard when you're spoonfed by Tom Hayden. And, as we noted, "students" weren't at risk of being drafted. First of all, there was a student deferrment (ask Dick Cheney or Tom Hayden). Second, female students -- females period -- were not drafted. So this nonsense EZ Bake 'answer' was never based on reality. Women made up easily half of the peace movement in the 'sixties' and were never at risk of a draft. Junior high kids protested the war and sixth to eighth graders boys weren't at risk of being drafted for many, many years. As Rebecca noted of Tom and Paddock's insane claims, "but we did make up easily half of the peace movement, women did. and this nonsense that a draft was what caused campus action because 'students' were afraid of being drafted or because 'students' had to go through an invasive medical visit (the military's physical) is crap. that's not reality. and don't talk to me about an invasive medical visit if you haven't ever had to pull up your legs and use those damn stirrups." Amen.

There are so many myths and lies about the draft. There are people who think, for example, the draft started after WWII (we were speaking to a group this morning and this came up). No. December 6, 1941 is when Pearl Harbor (base in Hawaii) is bombed by Japanese planes. December 7, 1941 is when the US enters World War II. We're dropping back to the opening of Abbott & Costello's Buck Privates, released January 31, 1941 (months before the US entered the war) which opens with a newsreel.

News Announcer: September 14, 1940. Congress passes the first peace time Selective Service Training Act in the history of the nation. President Roosevelt signs the Draft Bill, and effical step in national defense. Impressive ceremony. Secretary of War [Henry L.] Stimson is blindfolded, draws the first number from 9000 sealed capsules.

Over a year prior to the US entering WWII, the draft was passed, signed by FDR and it began. "Secretary of War" is what the Secretary of Defense post used to be named and what it should still be named. The draft has never ended a war but the draft and standing armies may have allowed for wars. Certainly that was the case in 1940. Stimson was a Republican. FDR brought him to the administration because he was going to put the US into WWII (with or without Pearl Harbor). Stimson had been Secretary of War once before -- during WWI. He was brought back July 10, 1940 to prepare for war with Germany.

The draft didn't stop WWII. The draft didn't stop the Korean War. During Vietnam, a large number of factors -- societal, cultural, demographic and movement-building ones -- helped create resistance to the war as did the very nature of the conflict which was based on lies and which depended upon daily lies to keep that war going. Insulting women of all ages who were never at risk of being drafted, insulting the men over the draft age or ineligble for the draft due to any number of reasons (and there were many disabled activists in the peace movement), and insulting young children in junior high who were at no immediate risk of a draft by claiming that their motivation was due to the fact that they might be drafted is insane. It's also, in terms of the women, sexist. But we're used to Tom's sexism. It got him kicked out of the Red Family, after all. In his vanity monument Reunions (a 507-page autobigoraphy -- that's basically 100 pages for each decade of his largely dull life -- though had he owned up to the extramarital activities he was carrying on as he wrote it, he might have spiced things up a bit), he glosses over his expulsion. His ego prevented him -- as we all remember -- from joining another commune. He had to 'start' one of his own (women did the work). Accused of manipulating people (a charge that floats through all of Tom-Tom's life) and of using the group as a springboard for his own publicity (a charge he leaves out of his book -- one of many), Tom in print declares that the collective had turned "into a cult." He never confronted his sexism, he never owned up to his opportunism. The fact that all these years later, he would strip women of their credit in the peace movement by insisting that 'students fear of being drafted' fueled the peace movement is an ugly but natural outcome in the ugly life of Tom Hayden. Pockmarks of the soul, indeed. There is no sincerity to Tom Hayden at all as the Tom Hayden Workout/Cashout made clear: Marry a famous and wealthy woman, use all of her money and fame to run for public office, cheat on her, chip away at her self-esteem daily, insult her looks, tell her she's getting old, cheat on her some more, attack her daughter (who caught on to you long before her mother did), poll to see if your wife is a liability to your political ambitions, when she finds out about the poll, demand alimony and a property settlement through various forms of veiled blackmail. The cool-down, of course, is retire to obscurity. In contrast to Hayden, Charlie Rangel is sincere; however, he is mistaken that a draft would bring the costs home. The same types of people who eluded the draft during Vietnam would elude it today. And since sexism runs through the fables of the 'sixties,' let's note that Matthew Rothschild's guest on this week's Progressive Radio is Susan Douglas who critiques media for In These Times and has a new book entitled Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work Is Done.

Statement from Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition

Badly losing the war in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus has decided to promote a violent civil war in Afghan villages.

That is the true intent of the new so-called Local Defense Initiatives that Petraeus forced down the throat of Afghanistan's puppet president Hamid Karzai. The new plan is a variant of the Community Defense Initiative that Gen. Stanley McChrystal tried to impose on Afghanistan after Obama selected him to lead the expanded war effort in 2009.

The Petraeus strategy calls for putting 10,000 job-hungry Afghan villagers on the Pentagon payroll. They will be given money and guns so that they can form militias and shoot and kill other members of their village who are asserted to be either pro-Taliban or opposed to the U.S./NATO occupation.

The new strategy further underscores the criminal role of the Pentagon generals. Petraeus is consciously fomenting civil war and ethnic rivalry just as he did in Iraq. Gen. James Mattis, Petraeus' new boss at Central Command, when speaking to a crowd in San Diego in 2005 about his experience in Afghanistan, said "it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot 'em."

President Obama and his military team recognize that it is less damaging at home, where there is almost no support for this endless occupation, to foment civil war in Afghanistan and pay desperate Afghans to slaughter each other as a means of reducing U.S. casualties.

U.S. taxpayers who are experiencing devastating cuts in state and local budgets, layoffs of municipal workers, soaring tuition hikes in public colleges—all because of budget shortfalls—will see billions of their tax dollars go to fund the occupation of Afghanistan and pay the salaries of poor Afghans so that they can shoot other poor Afghans. This is a classic divide-and-conquer tactic used historically by all colonial powers to break up a united resistance by the people whose lands they occupy.

The Obama administration and its generals are borrowing a page from Nixon and Kissinger's murderous "Vietnamization" plan, which became the announced policy in 1969. Since there was a rising tide of anti-war sentiment at home, Nixon and the Pentagon wanted the Vietnamese to kill each other in greater numbers as a way of diminishing U.S. war dead.

Millions of Vietnamese died during the war, as did 58,000 U.S. service members. The U.S. strategy succeeded in creating an ocean of human suffering, but it failed to alter the outcome. The Vietnamese, like the Afghan people, were unwilling to live under foreign occupation.

ANSWER Coalition organizers and volunteers have in recent months been working around the country to support the growing numbers of soldiers, marines, veterans and military families who are speaking out against the war in Afghanistan. We are reaching more and more active duty service members and recently returned veterans who know that this colonial-type war is based on lies by the politicians and the Pentagon Brass. The ANSWER Coalition affiliate March Forward! is reaching out to soldiers, marines and veterans.